AAPL.O

John Willoughby – April 27, 2016 06:52AMReplyQuoteCyberdyne Systems Customer Support

I guess that if Apple bought BMW that would settle arguments about who owns customer data...

I just don't see where Apple will bring enough value added in home automation and health to make big money there. I'd love to be proven wrong. Most of these new areas will require an impressive entry followed by sustained effort. It's the sustained effort part that Apple sucks at.

Wonder what the real story is with Carl Icahn. You worry a bit about China going after Apple? Um, has anything changed? Meanwhile the market for India is starting to open up. There are obvious reasons to worry about Apple… inability to spin the story properly, no new products in sight, AppleTV and iWatch both severely botched, computers dead in the water, iTunes, iOS, Mac OS, and WatchOS all clusterfucks, iPad sales perpetually dead, an iTunes store that nobody has visited in 4 years, botching the late launch of Apple Music. Absolutely no new innovation in a year. I mean there is a lot wrong with this company… They could still turn it around, for example… a thinner Watch with a better UI and cell service built in … 4K on the AppleTV plus more thought about the remote (I don't want to HAVE to use the darn thing) and some deals that really crush cable … a working keyboard for the iPad Pro (not sure if this is important to anyone but me) … maybe sell the new generation Macbook for $300 since that is what it's worth and it would sell well for that money … just some thoughts.

But back to the real question. Wonder what the real story is with Carl Icahn. I mean I've always thought of him as an idiot and he does support Trump, so he can't be too bright. But still.

Icahn's pulling some shit at Xerox (http://www.wsj.com/articles/xerox-plans-to-split-in-two-1454015527) -- I know it has everyone at PARC extremely nervous, and looking around for soft landing opportunities. Perhaps he sees himself wresting Xerox into something to compete against Apple in some aspect and is trying to lay the groundwork in the press that Apple is vulnerable.

It looks vaguely like they do tech consulting for companies other then Xerox. Which begs the question - why are they part of Xerox? Why is Xerox better off with this random distraction from its core business? Why is PARC better off as a subsidiary of Xerox than on its own or joined to another tech consulting firm (e.g., IBM)?

Why did Bell have Bell Labs for so long? Consulting is a small part, basic research is a large part, exploring what might be the next big thing (and by that I don't mean the next Snapchat, but the next mouse or the next internet). In some parts it may be a loss leader, but it's also a place for long bets. As is there on the site, beyond that one thing. It's also an intellectual hub, and draws talent to work on IP that can go to Xerox in ways that Xerox sans PARC never could.

Apple does a lot of blue-sky research, too, that never shows a profit, but sometimes pays off (they worked on tablets for almost a decade before the iPad). You just don't see it.

I don't see basic research being useful for a document management company (or most other companies for that matter). What about Xerox's corporate culture, organizational structure, etc. makes it better positioned to take advantage of in-house basic research than say, Walmart, Ford, McKesson, UnitedHealth, or Fannie Mae?

Edit – Apple's work on tablets used off-the shelf technology in a manner consistent with standard product R&D, not basic research.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/02/2016 08:46AM by James DeBenedetti.

Quote“Steve Jobs”One of the things I’ve always found is that you’ve got to start with the customer experience and work backwards to the technology. You can’t start with the technology and try to figure out where you’re going to try to sell it. And I’ve made this mistake probably more than anybody else in this room. And I got the scar tissue to prove it.

Yeah, Disney's Imagineering has borne some fruit such as the RFID bracelet-led park experience. Microsoft R&D has been spottier... remember Courier? I think it's more about the DNA of an organization and its willingness to take new ideas. The history of Xerox Parc suggests that the parent did not have the political will to commercialize ideas. Jobs abolished the R&D department and instead spread it to product teams who could design directly for the customer, which Jobs was deeply attuned to, instead of for internal demos or to prove a technological point.

Yes, the Xerox side didn't really do as well by PARC as it could have over the years. Cool example with that Disney bracelet (I'd no idea, but it looks smart). And JK, do you mean Microsoft's R&D specifically, or Microsoft Research, which is a distinct organization (kind of like PARC)? Microsoft Research has done a lot of interesting stuff that's not directly profitable, such as letting danah boyd do long-term sociology and ethnography research on children and teens, especially those in marginalized populations.